Discussion in 'Serious' started by hellblazer.doom, 9 Jan 2011.
Morally speaking? Pretty much no. Legally speaking in the UK? Yes, it's wrong.
Depends on the crime...
"Here mate, pigs ain't around so rape her..." would never be uttered out of my mouth ... I would however be rapidly taking the law into my own hands and stoving the nearest, largest, heaviest, most damaging brick/concrete/hammer/lamppost/tree/leaf/twig/fist/leg/breezeblock/car/tank/tent/radiomast into the side of their head very rapidly.
So I think it depends on the crime there right?
I don't see why. I can't make sense of the idea that it should ever be illegal for one citizen to tell another citizen a piece of information about where a third group of people are.
yeah forget you guys live in a smaller country.. probably no need to speed
when I was driving weekends up to see my sister- it was from atlanta, georgia to grand rapids, michigan.. it's a 14 hour trip when the speed limits were 55
they've increased the speed limit since then.. but back then if you were going 70- you got a ticket.. I've gotten so many tickets my insurance was through the roof- there was a time I didn't even have car insurance =]
a lot of no dose.. ah those were the days- popping into a breakfast joint looking like a crack addict totally bloodshot eyes xD
fuzzbusters work great, really no need now since they've increased the limits up to 75 on a lot of highways..
but you guys sound like sticklers to the laws- you have to use your common sense.. cops won't use common sense- from what I've seen anyway they are robots with a big stick in their hands
follow what the robot says and you won't get hurt.. oh yeah paying fines for getting profiled is a lot of fun too.. they wonder why everyone has such a low opinion of the police when they shoot a kid coming back from the gun range- with his gun in his sheath or beating homeless guys for fun.. yeah lets follow that example
Can you provide examples to back up these statements? Otherwise you're mounting an argument based on conjecture and story.
What an interesting comment, especially as it almost immediately followed this comment:
You're criticizing the police for acting like robots who fail to apply common sense in the application of law, yet you openly talk about how well fuzzbusters work (despite receiving so many tickets your insurance was prohibitively expensive), and brag of driving extended periods of time fueled by pills.
It seems to me the common sense approach to that kind of road trip would be to plan ahead, make the trip over a couple of days, and stick to the speed limit so as to avoid wasting money on increased insurance premiums.
I think there is a difference between saying, "The police are not here," and, "The police are not here, please rape this woman." In the former example, as spec argued, one person is telling another person some information about a third person. In the latter example, you are not just telling the other person about the third person, but you are also complicit in the crime about to be committed. At least, that's how I would differentiate between the two.
That was not what he said, now was it?
What he said was that he was driving at slow speed for a long period of time on a long journey which had him become tired, very tired, exhausted even.
"looking like a crack addict totally bloodshot eyes"
No pills involved, at least not being suggested in his post, not from what I can see.
yeah monkey has it in for me xD I dunno why.. but think my post is clear despite my lack of good grammar
I guess he's never had to be somewhere outside of his little town.. and back then the speed limits were way too slow.. least they've fixed that
if you did 75 you could make the 14 hour trip in 11.. but anyways off topic
Perhaps I was mistaken, but I thought that's exactly what he said (bold emphasis is mine):
I assumed he misspelled NoDoz. If my assumption is incorrect, then I apologize. If that is the case, I'm not sure what he meant by the phrase "a lot of no dose..."
I've made many long-distance road trips. I also used common sense and left enough time in my schedule to allow for frequent stops, resting overnight if necessary. I don't buy into the macho attitude of making an X mile drive in less than Y hours. I'm all in favor of unrestricted portions of highway, similar to the Autobahn, but I don't think the American general public has the sense of automotive responsibility to handle it.
Perhaps there is a difference, but you can always just say "no police around" I think it's implying that they will get upto no good.
I read it as "a lot of no close" which I interpret as "a lot of close calls for speeding" which had me connect "blood shot eyes" with tiredness, not pills. I now see my "interpretation" made very little sense, I suppose I should thank you.
In the end it came down to me being tired not reading properly...how lovely.
My apologies, supermonkey.
Separate names with a comma.